User:Aes1691/Meadowcroft Rockshelter/CJBissell Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Aes1691
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Meadowcroft Rockshelter

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the article includes brief statements of the geology, location, and archaeological significance of the site.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The sites designation as a PA Commonwealth treasure along with its affiliation with the Heinz History Center is not mentioned later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The cite added provides a reaffirmation of up to date information
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The Lead contains more information on geology and location than the geology and location section. Elaborate on the information in the Lead into the geology and location section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes although there could be better images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the new citation provides support and reference to the statement made.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The cite that had been added provides a reference to where the information was found.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Nothing can be added where the citation was placed. The citation was merely used to show where the information was found.